Does Faith Require Movement?

Thanks for the comments to yesterday's post on whether "lifelong leadership" is intrinsic to growth in Jesus, to finding one's calling, etc. 

I understand the pushback some of you felt.  After all, it sounds like a lot of work and clearly we all know great people who love God who, best as we can figure out, meet no one's definition of "leader."  And "leader" can be a very intimidating word that brings a lot of baggage with it from whatever culture we've experienced it used in.  And there are a few scriptures which perhaps indicate God wants things from us that aren't "leader-like" things (David had a heart like God's heart, etc... though David, that said, would seem to meet most definitions of leadership). 

Here's my dilemma which perhaps you can help me out with.  On the one hand, Jesus did seem to call his actual followers into leadership--the mission of the 72, the subsequent life of the apostles, even the Great Commission, which strikes me as being directed to all subsequent followers of his and which irreducibly seems to require doing something that would involve other people.

And, beyond the biblical pitch, the philosophical terms of our conversation here seem--to my puny brain at the moment at least--to nudge us that direction.  If faith isn't best described as something we're either "in" or "out" of (which would absolutely tell us that by far the most-important issue is to get "in" that circle of faith and that everything after that, however desirable, is clearly optional) but is better described by whether we're moving towards Jesus or veering away from him, doesn't that have something to say to us here?  If the bottom line is movement, then we're going somewhere, we're...okay, this is tautological...in motion.  My view of motion is that motion leaves a wake, and wakes tend to suck other people into them, and that coheres with my understanding of how Jesus consistently led people towards leadership of a kind. 

Now, yes, we all have different capacities and life circumstances, so clearly this will look different for different people.  But this tells me that motion is good, is to be desired, is not some kind of activist drag that, perhaps we "have" to do, however much we'd rather just be left alone.  Would the apostles have had better lives if they'd been able, after their adventure with Jesus, to return home under exactly their previous circumstances, but now with the added bonus of "knowing Jesus?"  Or was the demanding mission he set them out on actually the best possible news for them?  My vote?  Option B. 

But I could be missing something and, as perhaps you're picking up, this is a hotly controversial issue within Christendom, so much of which encourages people to "become better people" (I seem to be into quotation marks today--or, better put, "quotation marks") by picking up new and desirable character traits.  I encourage those things too!  But my sense is that the ultimate good I can do for anyone else always boils down to my helping folks reorient Jesus' way and move that direction.  And that seems to require and reward leadership.

But what do you think?  Does faith require movement?

Comments

[Leah Archibald]

When you put it in these terms, I'll take real moving faith over "self help" any day!

[leah]

eek! That's not me! stupid type pad login! That's what I get for trying to make a picture that's not a snowflake.

[Luke]

I'll buy this one. Can we be the sorts of people we dream of being without caring about the people within our spheres? And without going out of our way to serve them in some meaningful way?

When I was 19 and found myself with some leadership opportunities, I actually complained to my pastor. "I didn't ask to be in charge of this, I was just trying to help out." His response was that this was the way good leaders always start out.

I've found that my attempts to give up on leadership (leadership-oriented church gigs, largely) have actually failed, because I tend to notice problems or opportunities and I habitually tend to jump in. I'm not trying to be in charge (although its possible that I'm just overly Type-A and overbearing), but leadership in my life seems to happen when I respond to needs I see in front of me. Or, you could say, it happens when I'm in motion.

The only way I could totally unplug from that would be to stop seeing people around me, to see needs and say "I hereby refuse to offer assistance in this issue" again and again, and I think the horrible relational toll that would take on me is probably easy to imagine. I wonder if this is what it means to drop out completely, in Bobby Clinton's perspective? To become narrow and only concerned with my immediate responsibilities of job/family, and not see other people?

So that kind of leadership, I'm sold on. But packaging as "You should lead! Go! Lead! "BE """LEADERS"""" does definitely seem to carry a lot of baggage for a lot of people, including my 19 (and 31) year old self.

[Prashant]

I wonder how you would consider famous folks from the more monastic traditions? Some of them had little by way of movement in their lives, and in some cases almost no contact with followers. Were they not leaders?

Second question - can the impact of leadership be solely in ones legacy? Or posthumous? In which case, is one a leader even though ones life is spent laying the ground work for that posthumous impact? I can certainly think of secular examples where this was true.

[Rodger Otero]

Thinking about movement in terms other than myself as a leader, I had this semi-reflective thought:

Maybe I need to follow someone with the right movement rather than someone with the right rules.

In hindsight, this kind of thinking might have helped me avoid a number of pitfalls I've had in my own life. Rather than trying (painfully) to do all the right things someone told me to do to "fix myself," to get back in the beloved circle, perhaps what I needed was just to walk behind someone who was heading in the right direction, asking questions like, "Where are you going? Why are you headed that way? How do you stay on course?" Perhaps this would also mean that the best people I could have followed back then (and now) were not the ones who seemed to have everything together. So I say, Yes--movement, with the right trajectory, is probably a better indicator of who to follow.

[Christophe]

That reminds me of Jack Nicholson in "As good as it gets" -- who struggles with various mental/psychological problems. He is in love with this lady (whose name I forget) and he tells her: You make me want to take my pills.
And he explains, "you make me want to be a better person".

A professing Christian will admit that they are really screwed-up. They are also supposed to love God and "want to be a better person".
Of course, the enemy will typically play the guilt card, but we can deflect that.

James also tells us that good works are nothing, but faith without works is dead.
I am not sure I need to explain - but basically, I understand it to mean that if your faith doesn't spur you into action/movement, it is an indicator that your faith is as good as dead wood. It might warm you a little, but this isn't what God wishes for you.
I think we can also take it to mean that faith is bolstered by action.

So there. I'll take "my pills", and I'll actively look for opportunities to serve.

[Paul]

Heh! I got a good "chuckle" from your "quotation" comment!

Isn't life motion? If we're alive seems we're moving. And so it seems you're suggesting that we be intentional in what direction we're moving. I left my corporate job 2 years ago. I felt invited to take 7 months sabbatical...well it was indeterminate when I started.

During that time I spent time with God, but did other stuff too. I came to explore what you (Dave) ask us to consider every 'Leap of Faith:' "If time, circumstances, or money were not an issue what would you choose to do?" I discovered that my natural instinct was not to do 'nothing,' but actually do stuff ... and I discovered / remembered what I enjoy doing, but it takes time. And I can believe that's true for everyone, but who knows.

So for me, post sabbatical hasn't resulted in me going back to biz as usual, but onto the next thing...and the next thing, and imagine there'll be another next thing. Each choice required me to face head-on my own fears...it was counter-intuitive to take that risky step. That seems the faith journey.

I changed direction from where 'society' or my previous life choices were pushing me (using Dave's wake analogy) to a more intentional direction. And the guide for that new direction, yes, Jesus...and my own passions / desires. As I spent time with Him (and others more experienced on the journey) I discovered my own passions and took time to decide they were ok...in fact good (and God given)! I've had to continuously give myself permission to pursue those passions.

"Reality is God's friend." Another of Dave's sayings, which I've hung onto. It requires imagination to understand how my personal desires can 'work' in this world as it exists today in reality. Seems to me that's the same road the disciples walked...as they explored their passions and dreams and allowed their faith combined with circumstances to mold their destiny ... all for God's glory (and their own joy!)

And I think the very risky choices I've made have built my faith. It seems to me the alternative is that my current level of faith will dribble away if I choose to get off this intense path. I don't know for sure, but that's how it feels to me.

It also turns out my personal destiny is heading towards leadership...coincidence or not? (I wanna be that shirtless dancing guy pursuing my own joy...and others choose to join!)

[Paul]

Just thinking...maybe I'm that first follower behind you, Dave, oh shirtless dancer! Or maybe you were the first follower behind someone else...and I'm that next guy. Or maybe...

[Chad Smith]

I think faith requires movement, for sure (1 Jn 3:18, Jms 2:18). And maybe this was a comment more suited to yesterday's conversation, but I like Robert Lewis' (Fellowship Church, Little Rock AK) definition of leadership: "Taking responsibility for the benefit for others." I like this because it encompasses those people that we all recognize as leaders, but don't fit the usual "charismatic" profile of a leader. I like this too because it fits Jesus' definition of leadership of "those that would be great (a leader) would be your servant" (Mk 10, I think). This perspective breaks down the barriers of who can be a leader. Age, socio-economic status, or positions of power are not the criteria that determines leadership. Mother Teresa comes to mind as one who fits this description. She was a leader because she took initiative to be the hands and feet of Jesus in the lives of others. So those we see taking initiative to nudge the "arrows" of those around them into alignment with Jesus are the leaders among us.

[Dave Thom]

I wish I had time to read everybody else's comments but to answer your question, if your ever-present centered-set diagram indicates as you say that movement produces a wake, a wake that you say draws in (and never pushes out?), then it seems like you just gotta do whatever it is you just gotta do as your calling seems to demand and let the "am I a leader or not?" question just take care of itself.

You said: "the ultimate good I can do for anyone else always boils down to my helping folks reorient Jesus' way and move that direction. And that seems to require and reward leadership." I'm not convinced, unless what I'm about to say is something you're saying. If I'm an Olympic speed skater (I haven't watched 10 minutes of any event), I may sincerely feel called to speed skate to the glory of Jesus and let the chips fall on what He does with my skating or my words or anything in my outward life, and thus it may not look like I'm helping folks reorient Jesus' way cuz in my speed skating for Jesus world, my skating is the ultimate good. If you buy that, great. If you don't, then you might be a little too devoted to institutional leadership models.

[Ken Bonner]

Love this blog. I think this is borderline trolling, but here's what I'm thinking.
I personally think movement/action/activity is an indicator to being stagnant or not. Even if it's a bad action, God can use that more than nothing.
On the topic of leadership...it's interesting seeing so many people strive to be a leader, take classes, read books, or be 'forced' into it...but, a leader is someone who has people that are following. If you have people following you, you're a leader. If you don't, you're not.

[Dave T.]

Absolutely Ken, I said as much in a prior blog comment, but you said it better. And there's no shame in not leading, no shame at all. Why should people necessarily follow you? And do you really want to lead? It's just a headache and a burden of responsibility, you fail more people more often, you suffer WAY more complaints, and you never get to call your time your own. It's tiring, troubling and traumatic. Still, if it's how you're called, it is what it is. I like what Linus said: "I love humanity. It's people I can't stand." Generally, followers have a certain love for their leaders. And if you don't have a certain love for your followers, fahgitaboudit.